Since the only Palestinian 'state' the current peace process can
deliver is another Gaza-style enclave, this upsurge of violence
is hardly encouraging

By Ben White

20/01/08 "The
Guardian"
-- Once more, there
has been an upsurge of violence in the Gaza
Strip. Israeli military attacks
have killed over 30 Palestinians in the last few
days, while in the neighbouring Israeli city of
Sderot and across the Negev, Palestinian rockets
have fallen in their dozens.

At the same time,
however, there is also a renewed emphasis on
negotiations - it was only Monday that Israelis and
Palestinians began to
discuss issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian
refugees, and the borders of the proposed
Palestinian state. Most of the media coverage this
week has dealt with these parallel stories by
referring to the fresh bloodshed as coming
"despite" the "renewed peace talks", or as
representing an ill-timed challenge to the
successful continuation of the top-level meetings.

The IDF operations
and rocket attacks are indeed linked to the
so-called peace process, but not in the way that
most have suggested. One cannot divorce events in
Gaza and Sderot from the Annapolis agenda since, in
fact, far from being a threatening interruption to
Olmert-Abbas talks, the violence is sadly a natural
extension of Roadmap logic.

First, let us
remember the context for Israel's self-declared
"disengagement" from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The
spectacle of Israeli soldiers dragging away
screaming settlers, an image which apparently
symbolised the rift in Israeli society between those
willing to compromise and the religious extremists,
was a useful smokescreen for the openly-stated
motivations for the redeployment. From then prime
minister, Ariel Sharon, to
veteran statesmen like Shimon Peres and
US negotiator Dennis Ross, it was explained that
disengagement was about demographics, the term
preferred in polite conversation for the reality
that Palestinians are considered a strategic threat
on account of their race.

As Sharon's advisor,
Dov Weisglass, made clear, disengagement was all
about
putting the peace process in "formaldehyde".
Talking to Ha'aretz newspaper, Weisglass boasted
how disengagement legitimised "our contention that
there is no negotiating with the Palestinians", and
moreover:

"... in
regard to the large settlement blocs, thanks to
the disengagement plan, we have in our hands a
first-ever American statement that they will be
part of Israel ... Sharon can tell the leaders
of the settlers that he is evacuating 10,000
settlers and in the future he will be compelled
to evacuate another 10,000, but he is
strengthening the other 200,000, strengthening
their hold in the soil."

The acknowledgement
that there would have to be a future token removal
of settlers in the West Bank brings us right up to
date with post-Annapolis theatrics, as Bush hurried
to Israel urging Olmert to get serious about those
hill top trailer outposts. While in Jerusalem, the
US president
outlined his two-state vision that unites
everyone from the Israeli political establishment
and Abbas's clique, to Blair and western liberals.
Broadly speaking, it means recognition of Israeli
West Bank colonisation, the preservation of Israel's
right to discriminate against non-Jews, and the
creation of more sealed-off, "autonomous"
Palestinian homelands.

It is a recipe for
the creation of more, post-disengagement "Gazas".
Proposals such as those made by former IDF deputy
chief of staff and advisor to Barak and Sharon,
Uzi Dayan,
call for a West Bank "disengagement" to protect
Israel's "Jewish-democratic character". It's the
same "more land, fewer Arabs" mantra and, as Dayan's
map
shows, it means unilateral Israeli annexation of
huge chunks of the West Bank and the creation of
Palestinian bantustans.

Like today's
beseiged Gaza, where residents
dig up roads for the cement to make graves,
these artifical statelets will be subjected to the
same kind of treatment urged by commentators such as
Gilad Sharon,
writing today in leading Israeli paper Yediot
Aharanot:

"Even if
ultimately we are forced to embark on a broad
Gaza operation, we must not approach it as if
it's a surgical operation requiring microscopic
levels of accuracy ... We must tell Gaza
residents: 'One way or another, quiet will
prevail here. You can choose whether this will
be done through sitting in the darkness or
through turning your backyards into ruins.'"

The current
bloodshed in Gaza, then, is a warning that the
current peace paradigm is only likely to reproduce
the misery felt by Gazans and the
Israelis of Sderot. The Annapolis peace process,
guided by the Quartet, leads us towards a
Palestinian "state" that, notwithstanding Bush's
adjectival outpourings, will resemble Gaza-esque
enclaves declared "unoccupied" and subjected to
brutal repression. Israelis and, even more so,
Palestinians will be set for yet more of the kind of
violence and suffering ushered in by the Gaza
disengagement, as witnessed once again this week.

Ben
White is a writer living in Sao Paulo,
Brazil. He has spent several summers in
Palestine/Israel based in the West Bank
and written extensively on the Middle
East.

Comment GuidelinesBe succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy
and use this link to notify usif you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.

In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)